Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/863/2012

Bhupinder Singh S/o Rattan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

16 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint  No. 863 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 13.08.2012

                                                                                          Date of decision: 16.05.2017

Bhupinder Singh aged about 51 years son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of village Retgarh, P.O. Hafijpur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Harnol, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. SBI Life Insurance, Court Road, Jagadhri.
3. Abhishek C/o State Bank of Patiala, Branch Harnol, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                …Respondents.  

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

              Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 3.

              Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER( ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date.

2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was having a saving bank account bearing No. 55137009023 with the respondent No.1 Bank (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) and he wanted to invest the amount in FDR and for this purpose he visited the official of OP No.1 Bank and showed his willingness about the FDR and accordingly Bank Manager called the OP No.3 and told him to do the needful for the complainant. After that, OP No.3 asked the complainant to sign the papers and accordingly a sum of Rs. 19614/- was debited from the bank account of the complainant and the OP No.3 told to the complainant that the FDR has been done for a period of one year. Thereafter, the complainant received postage from the bank containing the insurance policy but he was under the impression  that the same was FDR documents. It has been further mentioned that complainant was in need of money and accordingly he went to the Op No.1 for terminating the FDR but he was shocked to hear from the bank manager that it cannot be terminated as the same is insurance policy and not the FDR. The complainant never intended to invest the hard money in the insurance policy but the official of the Ops in collusion with each other just to grab the hard money of the complainant invested the money of the complainant in the insurance policy instead of FDR which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of Rs. 19614/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OPs No.1 & 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true facts. The true facts are that the SBI Life policy was issued to the complainant with his due consent and on his demand and also after giving full information with regard to the product/ Insurance Policy. The complainant is very old customer of the bank and used to open FDR account in the branch from time to time. Therefore, complainant must be known that FDR of the Bank is given to the customer by hand not by post. Even otherwise also, the policy also had free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the documents to return the policy and get the money refunded in case the customer is not satisfied with the terms and conditions but in the present case, the complainant failed to do the same and on merit it has been stated that it is wrong to allege that on 25.01.2012 the complainant wanted to invest his amount in the FDR. In fact complainant showed his willingness for taking a life insurance policy accordingly, the policy in question was issued to the complainant. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OPs No.1& 3. 

4.                     OP No.2 i.e. SBI Life Insurance Company also appeared and filed its written statement besides some preliminary objections, it has been stated on merit that the OP No.2 Insurance Company had issued the policy based on the proposal form duly signed and submitted by the complainant. The complainant did not raise any dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the policy during the free look period of 15 days and enjoyed the benefits of the policy for the period for which the premium was paid. The complainant has leveled false allegations against the OP No.2 Insurance Company without supporting evidence. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had declared in the proposal form under point 17 that “ I hereby declared that the forgoing statements are answers have been given by me after fully understanding the question and the same are true accurate and complete in every manner and that we have not withheld or ambiguity to give any information. I understand and agree that statement in this proposal constitute warranties. I do hereby agree and declare that these statements and this declaration shall be the basis of the contract of assurance between me and SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.” Accordingly, the OP No.2 Insurance Company based on the information furnished in the proposal form, issued insurance policy bearing No. 35018305008 with the date of commencement as 07.02.2012 (Annexure B). It has been further mentioned that the said policy was dispatched to the complainant on 09.02.2012 through speed post and in the said policy document on the last page itself, the free look cancellation clause is mentioned in which the complainant was having option to cancel the insurance policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents but in the present case complainant failed to opt the said option. It has been further mentioned that complainant has paid only the first premium under the policy and the policy in question is in lapse status due to non-payment of renewal premium due on 07.02.2013. Lastly, it has been mentioned that as the policy in question was lying in lapse mode, hence there was no paid up value become due and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of pass book as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of first premium receipt amounting to Rs. 19500/- as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 closed the evidence without tendering any document.

7.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurpreet Kaur as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     The only version of the complainant is that he was having a saving account with the OP No.1 Bank and he wants to invest the money by way of FDR. Accordingly, he visited the official of Op No.1 and Manager of OP No.1 Bank called the OP No.3 to issue the FDR but the OP No.3 invested the money of Rs. 19,500/- of the complainant in the insurance policy of OP No.2 instead of issuing any FDR and when after some time he approached to the OP No.1 for terminating the FDR but he was shocked to hear to the Bank Manager that it cannot be terminated as the same is insurance policy not the FDR. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the complaint of the complainant is nothing except abuse of process of law. The Insurance Policy in question was duly issued as per instructions and consent of the complainant himself. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 draw our attention towards the proposal form Annexure R-1 and argued that this proposal form is duly signed by the complainant and accordingly based on the information furnished by the complainant himself the policy in question was issued to the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that the policy in question was issued for a period of 10 years with the annual premium of Rs. 19802/- (19500 + 302 tax) and last premium was to be paid on 07.02.2021. However, the complainant failed to deposit the premium after paying the first installment and the policy in question was lying lapse mode since 07.02.2013. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as the policy in question was lying in lapse mode since 07.02.2013, hence there was no paid up value and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as IND Swift Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal No. 157 of 2006 decided on 17.09.2012, General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumall Jain & Another reported in 1966(3) SCR 500 Apex Court and  LIC Vs. Anil P. Tadsalkar (1) 1996 CPJ page 159 (NC), SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. M.A. Partha & Others Appeal No. 732 of 2011, State Commission Banglore and case titled as Rajesh Choudhary Versus Branch Manager, SBI Life, Frist Appeal No. 2173 of 2010 Madhya Pradesh State Commission. 

11                    Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 argued that the matter in question is between the OP No.2 and the complainant as the complainant has purchased the insurance policy independently from the Op No.1 and requested for dismissal of complaint qua OPs No.1 & 3.

12                    After hearing both the parties , we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as it is duly evident that the policy in question has been issued on 07.02.2012 and the preset complaint has been filed on 13.08.2012 i.e. after a period of near about 6 months by the complainant even prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant visited the Ops so many times to refund the amount but the Ops failed to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Further, the OPs No.1 & 3 has himself admitted in para No.3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement that the complainant was very old customer of the bank and used to open the FDR account in the branch from time to time. Meaning thereby that the version of the complainant that he visited the official of OPs No.1 & 3 for getting the FDR but the OP No.3 and official of OP No.1 issued the insurance policy in question instead of FDR and withdrew the amount of Rs. 19,500/- from his saving bank account bearing No. 55137009023 seems genuine. Otherwise, generally the OP Bank compel  the public to get the insurance policy against the house loan or other loans to save their financial assistance but in the present case the facts of the present case are otherwise as it is not the case of the OPs No.1 & 3 that any loan was granted to the complainant. So, the version of the OPs No.1 & 3 that the complainant himself obtained the insurance policy in question from the OP No.2 independently is not tenable as, if the complainant wanted to get the insurance policy in question independently then he need not to visit the office of OPs No.1 & 3 and might have visited the office of insurance company.

13.                    On the other angle also, from the perusal of entire facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint, it is clear that complainant has moved from pillar to post to get the entire amount deposited with the OP No.2 Insurance Company but nobody listened to him. We generally see that when we go to a bank, insurance company or any other institute there are voluminous documents which are required to be signed by the concerned person and it is also seen that every documents which is got signed is not humanly possible to be gone through by the concerned person, undue benefits is taken of this situation. Similarly seems to be the position in the case in hand and there is every possibility that signature of the complainant had been taken in this manner. The case law referred above by the counsel for the Ops are not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

14.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we direct the OP no.2  Insurance Company to refund the amount of Rs. 13,500/- to the complainant, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,000/- out of deposited amount of Rs. 19,500/- on account of office expenses, stamp duty, service charges etc. whatsoever, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 16.05.2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C. SHARMA )

                         MEMBER                                           MEMBER.